About

A daily look at legal news and the business of law:
Bias vs. Bias: Judge Walker Is Gay -- and Conservative

In the wake of federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban violated the U.S. Constitution, gay marriage opponents haven't attacked the judge's reasoning: Instead, they've attacked the judge. Judge Walker is gay, and Prop. 8 supporters now suggest that his sexual orientation means he was so biased that their side never had a chance. However, it's worth noting that the gay marriage opponents never asked Judge Walker to recuse himself, as they had the right to do if they believed he was biased, which somewhat undercuts the charge now.

However, a major influence on judicial decision-making that everyone takes for granted is the political philosophy of the president who nominated the judge in the first place. Republican presidents generally nominate more conservative judges than Democrats do. "Elections have consequences," as Sen. John McCain once famously quipped.

Judge Walker was first nominated by President Ronald Reagan, and was confirmed after re-nomination by President George H.W. Bush. Indeed, the Senate rejected Walker when Reagan nominated him because he was seen as too conservative. Presumably being gay and being a Reagan/Bush nominee would be seen as opposing biases that would tend to cancel each other out in this case.

Elena Kagan was confirmed Thursday by a 63-37 vote: Five Republicans voted for her, and one Democrat against, but every other vote was along party lines. Although Kagan is not expected to shift the court's ideological balance much, her confirmation is potentially transformational in other ways: She makes the court one-third female for the first time, and is the court's only member without a judicial background. Moreover, her youth suggests Kagan will have the opportunity to shape the court over time.

The reasoning is not sound. The judge cited equal protection. He misinterpreted equal protection, in that everyone CAN get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. If you said that blacks, asians, and hispanics could not marry, then you would be denying them equal protection under the law. You would only allow white men and women to marry, but not other races. Therefore discrimination. There is no protection for two men or two women to marry, because it is not allowed now. Therefore, since no male-male can get married, there is no legal precedent to apply equal protection. The law discriminates against people all the time. The law does not allow you to drive a car without a license, even though a license only regulates your priviledge, but does nothing to make you good at it. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care if gays marry or not. What concerns me is the reason the court used to overturn the California law. The court's argument (rationale) is faulty, but the judge knew he had no where else to go, so he pulled the rabbit out of his hat. It will be overturned by the Supreme Court if Kagan and Sotomeyer are telling the truth when they say they will uphold the constitution. We'll see. But, in the meantime this judge is no "hero." He is clearly an activist judge who sees his office as one that should make law, not interpret it.

Well non-blacks, non-gays, non-hispanics and non-Moslems, we now know where we stand in Obama's judicial system. Helter Shelter has begun!!!! Our roles have reversed, we are now the minority and will be punished for our successes, wealth, self determination for our pursuit without entitlements!!!!!!

there was no reason for the judge to back out....he was appointed by a republican president to serve as a judge.....had he not been gay and voted in favor of the ban, the gay peeps could challenge that as a "he should have recused himself, he's straight"....probably not, huh?........